Another issue in Ross case
Only four of the 61 words a married MP reportedly sent to Jami-Lee Ross were published when news of the text broke on Tuesday. But those words, said to be from a text from a colleague with whom he acknowledged having an affair, were awful: ‘‘You deserve to die’’.
It’s crucial to remember that we don’t know all the circumstances prompting a text like that.
That said, what we do have is information that in itself is concerning enough that it demands specific attention, notably from National leader Simon Bridges, in a story that has already thrown up several other matters for serious inquiry.
We do know these things: Ross has in recent days accused Bridges of corruption though the information he’s made public has fallen short of revealing that. Police are looking into it.
Ross has in turn been accused of bullying and harassment and has admitted inappropriate behaviour, including an affair with a married MP from his own party.
In the midst of this maelstrom, Ross was taken to a mental health unit and is now staying with a friend.
The text, which was reportedly sent to Ross in August, has only now been made public by a supporter who provided it to Radio New Zealand with Ross’s consent.
The initial reporting described its abusiveness but a decision was made to withhold all but the final words. The journalists tried, as all media must, to balance oh-so-human vulnerabilities with matters of legitimate public significance.
Surely, however, those four words, in themselves, are sufficient to require assessment against the laws of the land; specifically the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
When more information is provided, as it must be, the appropriate consequences for the text sender – including whether she can stay in her role – then become a legitimate issue.
On top of which, many will hasten to add, the wider questions is what it tells us about the culture of the party – National is reviewing its workplace practices – about Parliamentary culture as a whole, and for that matter, the news media’s coverage of it.
Fair enough. Though before we stand back and scowl from a safe distance at the bad behaviour of those Parliamentarians, we might also consider the extent to which our House of Representatives remains exactly that – representative, to a discomforting extent, of a wider society where such behaviour is far from unknown.
In which case, people must still stand answerable, yes, but not by standards elevated comfortably above those we apply to ourselves.
Not that the same standards mean the same consequences. Inescapably, politicians’ failings, when disclosed, tend to attract more widespread attention.
Topped, not unfairly, with an extra-sensitivity to hypocrisy if it turns out that the errant MPs have moralised good and hard about the importance of accountability being required from others.
Another point, and not a small one. Without knowing for sure who sent that text message, we don’t know for sure who didn’t.
Unworthy suspicion now inflicts a notparticularly-large group of people.
This only adds to the case for the unnamed MP to come forward.